Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

I think, similar to the last GE, when it is generally acknowledged, I believe, that the electorate did not vote FOR Labour, but, AGAINST the Tories, now, the electorate are not voting FOR Reform, but, AGAINST Labour.

I suspect that's going to decide many elections in the future: rather than voting *for* something positive, they are voting *against* something, whether that's incompetence, dishonesty, disappointment, etc. And that could be a strong argument for a different voting system, whether that's PR, ranked voting, STV, or whatever.

 

[Ian H]

I suspect that's going to decide many elections in the future: rather than voting *for* something positive, they are voting *against* something, whether that's incompetence, dishonesty, disappointment, etc. And that could be a strong argument for a different voting system, whether that's PR, ranked voting, STV, or whatever.

The other name for it is tactical voting.

 

[briantrumpet]

I despair. What's the point of ousting Starmer if Burnham just does everything the same? They really really despise a large number of people who want to vote for them.

That said, I suppose it could be Mahmood's allies saying that.

 

[briantrumpet]

The other name for it is tactical voting.

Sure, but that should be a very last resort.

 

[Ian H]

Sure, but that should be a very last resort.

I have done it for 50 years since I moved to the area. Latterly with some success. Why would I not?

 

[briantrumpet]

Anyway, this is quite funny, for a lot of reasons (not least that Burnham is pretty much like Starmer but with a northern accent)

Someone's been reading NCAP...

 

[briantrumpet]

I have done it for 50 years since I moved to the area. Latterly with some success. Why would I not?

East Devon, that hotbed of radicalism. You know, putting the jam on first for a dare.

 

[Psamathe]

I despair. What's the point of ousting Starmer if Burnham just does everything the same? They really really despise a large number of people who want to vote for them.

That said, I suppose it could be Mahmood's allies saying that.

View attachment 15237

Hoping here but it allies doing the saying not Burnham and he's up against Reform so not the time to be pushing a more sympathetic stance towards refugees.

I'm hoping he'll avoid the issue (or at least use "slippery language") and not commit and then take a different approach. If he gets in easy to say her handling of the issues were not working and new ideas needed with new person in Home Office.

But maybe I'm deluding myself as I really don't know much about Burnham.

(to me "slippery language" is where you use words people interpret the way they want but if examined closely actually say very little).

 

[briantrumpet]

Hoping here but it allies doing the saying not Burnham and he's up against Reform so not the time to be pushing a more sympathetic stance towards refugees.

I'm hoping he'll avoid the issue (or at least use "slippery language") and not commit and then take a different approach. If he gets in easy to say her handling of the issues were not working and new ideas needed with new person in Home Office.

But maybe I'm deluding myself as I really don't know much about Burnham.

(to me "slippery language" is where you use words people interpret the way they want but if examined closely actually say very little).

Yeah, I have been known to say "Oh, I'm really sorry, I've already got something in the diary!" if I'd rather not do something, but don't want to be blunt. (Note: I don't actually say what day I've got something in the diary.)

There's no doubt that Blue Labour and Mahmood will be doing their utmost to force Burnham to promise to keep their Reformy policies, so it'll be interesting how slippery his answers are.

 

[Psamathe]

There's no doubt that Blue Labour and Mahmood will be doing their utmost to force Burnham to promise to keep their Reformy policies, so it'll be interesting how slippery his answers are.

Last election Starmer was promising everyone that all he needed to do was "smash the gangs" and problem solved. So Burnham could talk about "sticking with Labour's policy to resolve the migrant numbers and ensuring that we adopt a flexible approach to bring the situation under control, ensuring UK communities are not impacted. Though with smuggler gangs changing their methods we need to rapidly adapt to discourage people from making such a dangerous crossing ... and oh, we've run out of time"

 

[Pblakeney]

East Devon, that hotbed of radicalism. You know, putting the jam on first for a dare.

I take the pragmatic decision of whichever has the densest consistency goes on first.
Yes, clotted cream can be denser than the jam, and vice versa.

 

[First Aspect]

I take the pragmatic decision of whichever has the densest consistency goes on first.
Yes, clotted cream can be denser than the jam, and vice versa.

Fundamentally jam, cream and scones are designed to cause choking on scone dust. Scones are so dry the dust is more dangerous than asbestos.

And am I the only person who puts jam on one half, cream on the other and makes a Tamar agnostic sandwich?

 

[briantrumpet]

Fundamentally jam, cream and scones are designed to cause choking on scone dust. Scones are so dry the dust is more dangerous than asbestos.

And am I the only person who puts jam on one half, cream on the other and makes a Tamar agnostic sandwich?

With that kind of fence-sitting (or river-straddling), you could be the next Labour PM.

 

[Ian H]

Fundamentally jam, cream and scones are designed to cause choking on scone dust. Scones are so dry the dust is more dangerous than asbestos.

And am I the only person who puts jam on one half, cream on the other and makes a Tamar agnostic sandwich?

That must be a very small, or perhaps shallow scone. Unless you have a large mouth adapted for McDs and the like,

 

[Ian H]

With that kind of fence-sitting (or river-straddling), you could be the next Labour PM.

Nah, he'd get caught on camera eating a scone the wrong way.